DUI 2nd and 3rd Offense and the Real Focus – Alcohol

In a recent article, I pointed out that the ultimate focus in any DUI case that doesn’t get dismissed for some defect in or lack of evidence is about the Driver’s relationship to alcohol. To anyone facing a 2nd or 3rd Offense DUI, this is obvious on several levels. This article will continue that discussion as it relates to anyone who has already had a DUI, and should prove equally informative to anyone who has never been through anything like this.

There is a good chance that if you have been Arrested for a 2nd or 3rd DUI, you are required to submit to some kind of alcohol (and often) drug testing as a condition of your Bond, or release. So much for the presumption of innocence, then…

In the real world, especially as it relates to DUI cases, the Court system struggles to even pay lip service to the presumption of innocence. Remember, the purpose of Bond, in the first place, is to make sure you show up in Court and don’t just run away. Bond, in that sense, is like a kind of “deposit.” How does any kind of alcohol testing help insure (or not) that a person will show up for Court? The fact is, this kind of testing has NOTHING to do with insuring a person shows up to Court, and has EVERYTHING to do with the undisputed, if unspoken, belief that a person charged with a DUI is guilty.

There is a reason for this belief, however. It’s not that Judges just pick this stuff out of the sky. In the course of their various careers, most Judges will handle thousands, if not tens of thousands, of DUI cases. By contrast, those same Judges will ever only wind up dismissing a mere handful of DUI cases, if they ever dismiss any, in all those years on the Bench. When a case is “knocked out,” it’s almost always because of some technical defect or shortcoming in the evidence. Very often, the problem lies with how the evidence was collected or tested, meaning there is some question as to the scientific, and therefore legal reliability of the evidence. Very seldom does anyone go to Trial in a DUI case and prove they were Sober.

The bottom line, at least to a Judge who sees thousands upon thousands of DUI cases, is that practically no one comes into Court charged with a DUI who hadn’t been drinking, and had a few too many. Once in a while I’ll get a DUI case where the Police failed to obtain breath or blood evidence, but that’s a lot different than arguing that someone with a .12 (one and a half times the legal limit) or even higher breath test wasn’t really over the limit.

If we’re going to be really blunt about it, then, that means that when Dan the Driver goes to Court after having been Arrested for DUI, and having blown a .12 (or higher), the Judge isn’t really thinking “Well, Dan is presumed innocent, so his breath test of .12 means nothing at this point. I wonder if the prosecutor will be able to prove Dan really was driving while intoxicated?” Instead, the Judge might figure that maybe, if Dan gets a really good Lawyer, and catches a lucky break, there might be some technical hiccup with the evidence and with a slick legal maneuver, Dan might be able to wiggle out of the charge.

In other words, Judges don’t really question that people charged with DUI have been drinking. Or driving. If you’re reading this, and you are required to test, there isn’t much more to say. If you have been through a DUI before, then you know what comes next…
The net result of any DUI case that doesn’t get “beaten,” meaning dismissed or thrown out for some reason, is a load of real-world consequences (meaning classes, counseling awareness and prevention programs and the like), all focusing on alcohol. Of course, everyone’s first concern is staying out of Jail. With very few exceptions, at least for me, accomplishing that is not a problem. Yet I don’t consider it much of a success to just keep a Client out of Jail, only to have them pounded with endless classes, counseling and testing.

Consider this simple reality: Almost no one ever goes to Jail for a 1st Offense DUI, yet practically everyone winds up doing at least some kind of classes, counseling or testing. So what does that indicate about where the focus of the Lawyer’s efforts should be? If you hire a Lawyer whose sales pitch is just “stay out of Jail,” and you’re not going to Jail in the first place, what have you really paid for?

I come at this in a very different way. Because alcohol, and by that I mean; alcohol breath and/or urine testing, written